Re: shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]

Peter, this is a bit overly subtle for me. Can you say what exactly you 
see as violating RDFS? I'll tell you what I see and you can tell me how 
I'm wrong ;-) - when a property is itself a resource (X rdfs:label Y) 
then this has the RDFS meaning. What I see is that the resource that is 
named with rdfs:label in the case of SHACL is the blank node.

Now, what's the real problem? I assume it's not just wording.

Thanks,
kc

On 11/5/15 3:57 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I had long thought about using new properties such as sh:label and
> sh:definition instead. I decided to prefer rdfs:label and rdfs:comment,
> because these properties are most likely already used as annotations on
> the shapes, classes and other resources in SHACL files. People will get
> confused which property to use in which context, adding just another
> unnecessary complication in the learning curve.
>
> Since a property constraint resource describes the use of a property in
> the context of a shape scope, I see no reason why using rdfs:label would
> violate the official spec.
>
> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-112 - no change required.
>
> Holger
>
>
> On 11/6/2015 7:55, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS
>> properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/112
>>
>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
>> On product: SHACL Spec
>>
>> >From http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/:
>>
>> Property constraints may have an rdfs:label to provide a
>> human-readable label for the property in the scope where it appears.
>>
>> >From http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
>>
>> rdfs:label is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used to provide
>> a human-readable version of a resource's name.  A triple of the form:
>> R rdfs:label L . states that L is a human readable label for R.
>>
>> The SHACL use does not abide by the RDFS meaning.  SHACL should not
>> use RDFS properties in ways that violate their RDFS meaning.
>>
>> Similarly for rdfs:comment.
>>
>>
>> PROPOSAL:  Remove the non-conforming wording for and uses of
>> rdfs:label and rdfs:commment.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 15:41:20 UTC